Leaderboard

I’m going to start taking over/under bets in each thread hiflier starts. We’ll be betting on how many times he gets upset at other posters for not agreeing or posting how he wants them to. Lol.

In a tweet by Matt Moneymaker, found on the BFRO website, he says, in regards to the Claudia Ackley lawsuit, " It's the latest publicity stunt by Todd Standing. He did the same thing in BC in October. He’s using Claudia Ackley to file this suit. We investigated Claudia's incident a while back. It was an optical illusion. That much was demonstrated to her. Now it should b considered a hoax." Any comments, or was this already mentioned?

There are plenty of folks in this forum who believe that the Patterson Gimlin film is proof of the existence of sasquatch. Let the film be introduced as evidence in this case and have the courts subpoena Gimlin as an expert witness. After all, It was filmed in the State of California and is certainly relevant to this case. Let's put it to the test...

To protect BF, or protect humans from BF, doesn’t one have to acknowledge BF? How do we acknowledge BF if not discussing existence?

During the shooting of Episode1, Season 6, a couple of years ago, I spent an evening having dinner and drinks with Cliff and Matt at the appropriately named Sasquatch Inn, near Harrison Bay, B.C. At that time, they made it clear that the show was strictly entertainment, made to fit the desires of the producer, and they went along with it, within limits, to suit those desires. The upside for Cliff and Matt was that it paid them enough to pursue their own "real" research, outside of the show itself, using all of the great leads they got through the townhall meetings. Nice guys to spend an evening with.

Do you not believe that circumstantial evidence is different when dealing with known beings such as humans vs. mythological beasts such as BF in regards to discovery? I hear this argument brought up at times when discussing tracks. We can convict a killer on Shoe tracks but not an unknown species on it’s tracks? Well duhh!! I shake my head when ppl use this logic.

How can the question of existence be settled in court if it does NOT involve Biology? What’s next? A civil case on the existence of Pixies? Gnomes? No matter what my personal belief is? To settle a question of a cryptids existence and what sort of rights and guarantees should be afforded to it? Biological proof is required first.

Chewy is not real, he is a star wars character. Sasquatch are flesh and blood creatures that can and do make mistakes. They bleed when shot, have scar tissue visible where wounds have healed and are born with genetic defects just like every normal living thing. I am sorry but international space travelers don't get spotted picking through garbage at night every Feb to March outside the town of Orting,WA. They exist under our basic principles of physics and demonstrate normal wildlife behaviors. Please take the paranormal/ alien bigfoot stories to the appropriate section of the forums.

Ummm....what if this question right here is not one of biology? But whatever, keep pounding. I've found there is really not much of a future in trying to solve an intractable problem by spending energy on only endlessly redefining what the problem is. You can claim this cat can be gutted and dressed only just so, but there is world of history out there that says different. There are more things in law, equity and administrative procedure than are dreamed of in your biology. (And photography, and forensics, and....) That is not a prediction though. I don't handicap litigation and anyone who does is a rank fool. It is anyone's guess how this will turn out and anyone who says they know is kidding themselves and others.

Being a Nebraska native also (spent my first 30 yrs there, now am in MT), I also doubt that BF could live in NE and stay out of sight. Plus, consider the amount of hunting that goes on in the state, how well farmers and people know their land even if it isn't farmland. There are areas that have cover (Ponca was mentioned), but IMO aren't big enough and are too well travelled by humans to allow a very large primate to live basically unseen.

^^^ Then he could claim that the judge who eventually throws this out didn’t read enough reports!

I can't believe I'm saying this but I kinda wish DWA was around for this

You seem to have quite a bit of knowledge about them. Have you been abducted and anal probed?

With all due respect, I'm not buying that sasquatches are interdimensional tall grays. I also don't believe that a sasquatch is an alien. Call me crazy!

I don’t believe it.....

I think those are simple faulty assumptions based on our own bias. I think life follows the same struggle from simple organisms to complex organisms. Above all else organisms seek to propogate themselves. And secure the resources necessary in which to do that. Technology is only the tool that allows organisms to propogate outside of the area in which it evolved in. Fire and the hand axe allowed human ancestors to leave Africa. Constructed boats allowed human ancestors to cross oceans. And solid fuel boosters allow us to leave earths orbit. Presumably self contained starships of the future will allow humans to propogate the stars. Its never ending..... species who lack this drive are extinct.